MicrostockGroup

Hi,

I'm considering trying to enter the microstock business for fun, as a side thing, and as a way to develop my skills. I am definitely not at an professional level, but I learn, and I intend to challenge myself to improve and to finally sell some images.

My main problem as I see it is that I'm specialised in pet photography, mainly cats and dogs. I've been reading articles and browsing agency collections, and they all say that pet photography is a surefire way to get rejected. Does this hold true 100 %, or can a very good pet photographer get in? Not saying I am one, but I would be willing to work towards it. I have limited experience at other fields, althoug that would also be good to work at.

Any comments on the below images would be greatly appreciated. These have been minimally processed (just wb and contrast tempered with) and are all at ISO 100.

http://stirredreality.com/stock/6.jpg (please ignore the blemish; I'm interested in what would make this work colour-, composition- and subjectwise)
http://stirredreality.com/stock/3.jpg
http://stirredreality.com/stock/5.jpg (too snapshoty?)
http://stirredreality.com/stock/4.jpg (does this contain fringes? I'm not good enough to tell)
http://stirredreality.com/stock/2.jpg (is this subject matter at all commercial?)

Thank you!

I agree with what you said about the photos. If I were to submit anything, I would start making lists of things I wouldn't to shoot and then stage them - these are snapshots and as such the subject matter is (hopefully) better than the execution.

I realise it takes time to get in and I don't mind. That only adds to the challenge and I have plenty of patience anyway.

Thanks for your comments and tips!

Snapshots can make it too, just try to use basic photography concept, like for the 1st portraits, try to look for a clean background. for your 2nd portraits the depth of field bring attention to the face, but there seem not enough of contents to tell what the lady is doing, looking at something? relaxing?

we all are started with something what we are shooting, one can get improved through whatever they are shooting. It also doesn't make sense to start shooting lady business model or some concepts shoot that needs more experience or equipment.

Just enjoy what you are shooting but put more consideration on technical skills, and you may come out with some portfolio strong enough.

 

Thank you. I appreciate the comments and I intend to learn from them.

None of the photos are actually cropped, but that doesn't change the validity of your comments. If they appear to be cropped, they should have been shot from a farther distance as far as I'm concerned.

I think re: the mouse photo that I was trying to go through images I'd taken that were taken at ISO100 and not totally, completely worthless for retail. Guess I got a little desperate in the process, plus I admit I need to learn what does sell and what does not.

About animal images in general - what type do sell? I could imagine shots such as this: http://stirredreality.com/stock/1.jpg (I know - poor lighting, obstructed background, focus is off by 5 mm and there's dust in the foreground) are overrepresented because they're so easy to take and almost always turn out cute regardless of animal. Do more exotic animals help? For instance, I have taken plenty of close-up shots of snow leopard kittens and peregrines (all at too bad ISO but otherwise fine). Do you have any general ideas here? I've looked through what sells on the sites but I honestly can't seem to find a consistent theme to it.

no they wouldn't. the first is an okay portrait, but the background is too busy for stockyness. the rest is pretty poor, I definiately not a great fan of the microstock standrad for photography (it's a cesspool of corniness with added amateurish waaay overprocessing for the added trailorpark - bad - taste feel) but I would understand them not wanting those. The poor gal on the second portrait looks like she fell and got her head smahsed againt a pipe : )

Nah, it's cool. I don't intend to let you ruin my day just because somebody pissed in your corn flakes and you don't know the difference between critique and rudeness. I'm glad your comment wasn't the first though; at least now I know the entire forum doesn't consist of assholes.

Sorry to spoil your evil keyboard ninja pleasures. Have a nice day!

leaf and molka: Thanks for your comments!

nice of you despite me being kinda un-infromative, but I don't consider myself on the level of giving out photography instrucions (maybe in 10 years, unless somebody particularly asks me for it), and I also doubt that kinda thing can be done thru the net, message boards etc...

I'm off to buy some catnip...

^^ This is spot on.   A clear message is the difference between successful microstock images and the ones that just sit around gathering dust before going to the dollar bin.

My favorite of your shots was the mouse too.  Loved your cat's eye perspective on that one and the shallow depth-of-field.  Really makes you empathize with the mouse as you see it is about to be grabbed by the cat and it is totally unaware.  (yes, I do realize it is a fake mouse)

I didn't see anything wrong with your portraits.  They are perfectly good if you were doing them for the models.  But as others have pointed out, they don't tell enough of a story for them to work well as stock.  

Some of us around here have been at this so long, the critiques may be pretty harsh.  That doesn't mean they aren't useful.  In fact, a critical evaluation is worth a lot more than false praise, just to make you feel better.  

When I look at my earliest photography efforts and first stock submissions, I just have to wonder what I was thinking.  You can't always tell by looking at someone's early work whether they will make it or not.  The difference between people who make money in microstock and the ones who don't is largely a matter of effort. I've seen people grow from taking snapshots of their back yards and pets, to professional stock photographers, with enough hard work.  

Unfortunately the websites just don't need content they way they used to, and aren't inclined to give people the chance to grow into their abilities anymore.  Now you have to already be good at producing technically perfect, visually appealing stock oriented photos before you even bother signing up.  

My suggestion - look at magazines, tv ads, billboards.  When you can produce the quality of images that are in those media, you can be certain you will do well in stock.  Until then, hone your skills by reading books, magazines, etc.  Popular Photography and Shutterbug have been very helpful.  And the forums at DPreview.com are practically a college level course in photography IMO.  

how about this:

open an agency, could be perhaps fotolia, type a subject (people, isolation, travel, animals, whatever).. now look at that "stock photos", now do a few similar just for practicing, don't think I cannot do better than those just DO them (think as hobby), I can tell you that a big % of my work is worst.. with time you will do better for sure (composition, lighting, camera settings)

What can I tell you more? When I started (year and half ago..) I bought my first SLR without thinking of stock, it was an old dream of mine, always wanted to have something big LOL from which I would take awesome pictures (sometimes I feel I do) This means I have no background in photography, no books, no nothing.. Ok a few time reading here and there but I haven't got a single book, not saying this is a good thing, it just my way, keeping expenses low in all aspects

The main reason is that everything is possible, I won't be rich or be called stock photographer soon lol but I can still have a few sales around the world

I started at FT (it is a hard agency but got no "entry exam", upload, get rejections, improve and do it on your own, I just bumped into forums few time ago, guess that helped me out!)